Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
May 2008
ii
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved by: Chair of Committee, Maria A. Barrufet Committee Members, Christine Ehlig-Economides Mahmoud El-Halwagi Head of Department, Stephen A. Holditch
May 2008
iii
ABSTRACT
Analysis of Power Generation Processes Using Petcoke. (May 2008) Ramkumar Jayakumar, B. Tech., Anna University, Chennai, India Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Maria A. Barrufet
Petroleum coke or petcoke, a refinery byproduct, has generally been considered as an unusable byproduct because of its high sulfur content. However energy industries now view petcoke as a potential feedstock for power generation because it has higher carbon content than other hydrocarbons like coal, biomass and sewage residue. This gives petcoke a great edge over other feedstocks to generate power. Models for the two most common processes for power generation, namely combustion and gasification, were developed using Aspen Plus steady state chemical process simulator. Overall plant layouts for both processes were developed by calculating the heat and mass balance of the unit operations. After conducting wide sensitivity analysis, results indicate that one ton of petcoke feedstock can generate up to 4 MW of net available power. Both processes have rates of return greater than 30%, although gasification offers a slightly more attractive opportunity than combustion.
iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to God and to my parents. I am grateful for their support, faith and encouragement which saw me through the program and helped me achieve my goals.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Maria Barrufet for her counseling, encouragement, support, and thorough review that resulted in the completion of this research work and report to the industry. I would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Christine Economides for her support, advice, and review of the work that resulted in the completion of report to the CONACYT. My special thanks to Dr. Mahmoud El-Halwagi for his willingness to serve on my dissertation committee, and his invaluable suggestions with Aspen simulator, which significantly helped me completing this research work.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xiv 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objective .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Motivation ................................................................................................................ 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 4 2.1 Petcoke Availability in US ....................................................................................... 4 2.2 Overview of Combustion Systems ........................................................................... 5 2.3 Combustion Technologies ........................................................................................ 6 2.4 Combustion Mechanisms ....................................................................................... 11 2.5 Heat Recovery and Power Generation ................................................................... 15 2.6 Overview of Gasification ....................................................................................... 17 2.7 Gasification Systems Around the World ................................................................ 17 2.8 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) .................................................. 18 2.9 Gasifier Technologies ............................................................................................ 19 2.10 Gasification Mechanism....................................................................................... 25 3. MODELING THE COMBUSTION PROCESS .......................................................... 29 3.1 Overall Process Flow Description .......................................................................... 29
vii
Page 3.2 Feedstock ................................................................................................................ 30 3.3 Feedstock Preparation Unit .................................................................................... 31 3.4 Combustion Unit .................................................................................................... 33 3.5 Modeling the Feedstock Preparation and Combustion Processes .......................... 33 3.6 Heat Recovery Unit (HRU) and Steam Generation ............................................... 37 3.7 Modeling the Heat Recovery Unit (HRU) and Steam Generation ......................... 43 3.8 Sulfur Removal Unit (SRU) ................................................................................... 45 4. MODELING THE GASIFICATION PROCESS ........................................................ 48 4.1 Overall Process Flow Description .......................................................................... 48 4.2 Gasification Island.................................................................................................. 49 4.3 Gas Cooling ............................................................................................................ 53 4.4 Gas Cleanup ........................................................................................................... 55 4.5 Gas Turbine Section ............................................................................................... 58 4.6 Steam Cycle............................................................................................................ 60 5. SENSITIVITY AND EMISSION ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESSES ..................... 64 5.1 Sensitivity Analysis of Gasification Process .......................................................... 64 5.2 Sensitivity Analysis of Combustion Process .......................................................... 70 5.3 Atmospheric Emissions .......................................................................................... 76 5.4 Power Consumption and Generation by the Utilities in the Combustion Process . 80 5.5 Power Consumption and Generation by the Utilities in the Gasification Process . 81 5.6 Overall Efficiency of Combustion and Gasification .............................................. 82 6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESSES ...................................................... 84 6.1 Capital Cost for Gasification Process.................................................................... 84 6.2 Operating Cost for Gasification Process ................................................................ 86 6.3 Cash Flow for Gasification Process ....................................................................... 87 6.4 Capital Cost for Combustion Process..................................................................... 87 6.5 Operating Cost for Combustion Process ................................................................ 88 6.6 Cash Flow for Combustion Process ....................................................................... 89 6.7 Comparison of Cost Analyses for Both Processes ................................................. 90 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 94
viii
Page 7.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 94 7.2 Recommendations for Future Work ....................................................................... 95 NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................... 96 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 98 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 102 VITA .............................................................................................................................. 150
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Petcoke export from US refineries ............................................................. Distribution of power production in US (2005) ......................................... A typical AFBC unit .................................................................................. Typical unit operations flow sheet of the combustion process .................. A typical PFBC unit ................................................................................... T-S plot of the Rankine cycle ..................................................................... Typical unit operations flow sheet of the gasification process .................. A typical fixed bed gasifier unit ................................................................. Temperature profile in a fixed bed gasifier unit ......................................... A typical entrained bed gasifier unit .......................................................... Temperature profile in a entrained bed gasifier unit .................................. A typical fluidized bed gasifier unit ........................................................... Temperature profile in a fluidized bed gasifier unit ................................... Flow diagram of combustion section ......................................................... Flow diagram of heat recovery section ...................................................... Pinch point analysis in heat recovery unit .................................................. Power generation variation with temperature ............................................ Flow diagram of steam recovery section. ................................................... Flow diagram of a Rankine cycle ...............................................................
Page 5 6 8 9 11 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 38 38 42 43 45
FIGURE 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 6.1 6.2 Flow diagram of sulfur removal section .................................................... Flow diagram of gasification island section ............................................... Flow diagram of gas cooling section .......................................................... Flow diagram of Claus process section ...................................................... Flow diagram of gas turbine section .......................................................... Flow diagram of steam turbine section ...................................................... Carbon monoxide variation with temperature ............................................ Hydrogen flow rate variation with gasification temperature...................... Hydrogen sulfide flow rate variation with gasification temperature .......... Flow rate of components with variation in oxygen in the gasification ...... Flow rate of components with variation in steam in the gasification ......... Power generation variation to steam turbine discharge pressures .............. Sulfur oxide flow rate with air in the combustion process ......................... Carbon dioxide flow rate with air in the combustion process .................... Sulfur oxide emission with temperature in the combustion process .......... Efficiency of combustion process with temperature .................................. Heat duty variation with combustion temperature ..................................... Carbon dioxide emission comparison in both the processes ...................... Profit breakeven for combustion and gasification ...................................... Payback period for combustion and gasification ......................................
Page 46 52 54 57 59 63 65 65 66 68 69 70 72 73 74 75 76 79 91 91
xi
FIGURE 6.3 6.4 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 Capital cost distribution for the gasification process ................................. Capital cost distribution for the combustion process .................................
Page 92 92
Energy balance around pump ..................................................................... 103 Mass and energy balance results around pump .......................................... 103 Mass and energy balance results around compressor................................. 106 Energy balance around gasifier .................................................................. 107 Mass and energy balance results around gasifier ....................................... 108 Energy balance around cooler1 .................................................................. 109 Mass and energy balance results around cooler1 ....................................... 110 Energy balance around cooler2 .................................................................. 110 Mass and energy balance results around cooler2 ....................................... 111 Energy balance around cooler3 .................................................................. 112 Mass and energy balance results around cooler3 ....................................... 113 Energy balance around Selexol reactor ...................................................... 114 Mass and energy balance results around Selexol reactor ........................... 115 Energy balance around Claus furnace ........................................................ 116 Mass and energy balance results around Claus furnace ............................. 119 Energy balance around cooler5 .................................................................. 119 Mass and energy balance results around cooler5 ....................................... 120 Energy balance around Claus separator ..................................................... 121 Mass and energy balance results around Claus separator .......................... 122
xii
FIGURE A-20 A-21 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-25 A-26 A-27 A-28 A-29 A-30 A-31 A-32 A-33 A-34 A-35 A-36 A-37 A-38 A-39 A-40
Page Energy balance around Claus heat exchanger ............................................ 122 Mass and energy balance results around Claus heat exchanger ................. 123 Energy balance around Claus furnace ........................................................ 123 Mass and energy balance results around Claus furnace ............................. 124 Energy balance around Claus separator ..................................................... 125 Mass and energy balance results around Claus separator .......................... 126 Energy balance of the first gas turbine compressor ................................... 128 Mass and energy balance results of the first gas turbine compressor ........ 129 Energy balance around second gas turbine compressor ............................ 129 Mass and energy balance results of the second gas turbine compressor ... 131 Energy balance around first gas turbine ..................................................... 132 Mass and energy balance results around the first gas turbine .................... 133 Energy balance around second gas turbine ................................................ 134 Mass and energy balance results around the second gas turbine ............... 135 Energy balance around third gas turbine .................................................... 136 Mass and energy balance results around the third gas turbine ................... 137 Mass and energy balance results around the first HRSG ........................... 139 Mass and energy balance results around the second HRSG ...................... 141 Energy balance around re-boiler ................................................................ 141 Mass and energy balance results around re-boiler ..................................... 142 Energy balance around high pressure steam turbine .................................. 143
xiii
Page Mass and energy balance results around high pressure steam turbine ....... 144 Energy balance around low pressure steam turbine ................................... 145 Mass and energy balance results around low pressure steam turbine ........ 145 Energy balance around condenser .............................................................. 146 Mass and energy balance results around condenser ................................... 147
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 Gasification plants around the world with petcoke feedstock .................... Proximate analysis of the petcoke feedstock .............................................. Ultimate analysis of the petcoke feedstock ................................................ Important parameters used for modeling the combustion section.............. Power generation matrix with feed water flow rate and pressure .............. Important parameters used for modeling the heat recovery section ........... Important parameters used for modeling the steam cycle section.............. Important parameters used for modeling the gasification island section ... Important parameters used for modeling the gas cooling section .............. Important parameters used for modeling the gas cleanup section.............. Important parameters used for modeling the gas turbine section ............... Important parameters used for modeling the steam turbine section ........... Emission of pollutants in the combustion and gasification process ........... US clear skies emission limits of the pollutants ......................................... Power generated and utilities load in the combustion process ................... Power generated and utilities load in the gasification process ................... Correlations used for calculating CapEx of gasification process ............... Correlations used for calculating OpEx of gasification process ................ Correlations used for calculating Capex of combustion process ...............
Page 18 30 31 37 41 43 45 51 55 56 60 62 77 78 81 82 85 86 88
xv
TABLE 6.4 6.5 7.1 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 Correlations used for calculating OpEx of combustion process ................ Assumptions used in cost analysis ............................................................. Optimum process parameter values for both processes ............................
Page 89 93 94
Heat of formation values of components ................................................... 117 Sensible enthalpy values of components .................................................... 117 Average enthalpy values of components .................................................... 117 Energy balance comparison in gas cooling and Claus process .................. 148 Energy balance comparison in gas and steam turbine section ................... 149
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective This study developed simulation models of gasification and combustion systems to analyze the potential to use petroleum coke (petcoke) as feedstock, for energy generation. We also analyzed the compositions of products in both processes; emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and costs including the capital and operating costs. We used Aspen Plus,1 steady state simulation software, to model the unit operations in the combustion and gasification processes. The study focused on the gasification systems based on the Texaco gasifier. We used, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and combustion systems based on atmospheric fluidized bed combustion systems (AFBC) for conducting this study. Our study include, a detailed evaluation of gasification and combustion processes, emissions, process performance in terms of net power generated, power required by the unit operations and a general cost analysis including capital and operating expenses.
1.2 Motivation Rising prices of natural gas observed in recent times have forced energy intensive industries such as glass, cement, and steel to look for alternative sources of industrial
heat and power. In light of current circumstances, petroleum coke (or petcoke) can be considered a very good prospect because of its low cost, high calorific value (in the range of 15,000 Btu/lb), and availability. Although petcoke has a higher heating value than coal, it generally contains a larger percentage of sulfur compounds and heavy metals, leading to corrosion and environmental emission problems that need to be addressed. Petcoke is more difficult to ignite than coal, but start-up schemes can be designed, including petcoke/coal mixtures and recirculation in fluidized bed boiler, that ensure ignition. Once ignited, petcoke is sufficient for the continuous combustion process. Historically, petcoke has been used in cement production and in the iron and steel industry, which account for two-thirds of its use. Another use has been in carbon electrode manufacture. In recent times, it has been looked upon by energy-intensive industries as a potential cost-effective alternative to oil or natural gas for industrial heat and power.2
Process industries currently use natural gas for their power requirements. Because the use of natural gas has become a costly option, this project has evaluated the production of power from petcoke by gasification and combustion processes, to use as a substitute for the natural gas. Because petcoke is cheap and has higher heat content than coal, it could be a good alternative to generate power as a substitute for natural gas3. Substituting petcoke for conventional resources already in place in process industries appears promising because of recent increases in production of petcoke in the United States. Petcoke can provide heat and power directly; or it can be gasified to produce
syngas, which can then provide heat and power; or it can be combusted to generate power directly. The gasification process captures more of the energy content and is environmentally superior, but it is more capital intensive.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This project aimed at developing a simulation model of power generation through combustion and gasification using petcoke normally considered as an industry refuse, as the feedstock. The project focused mainly on the modeling and simulation of petcoke feedstock based on a Texaco gasification process and atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) systems. The models used ASPEN Plus modeling software1, a steady-state process simulation software developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The main reason to model the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) systems are due to their wide application in the power industry. They have been widely adopted for power production in the industry. The gasification and combustion process are reviewed and explained briefly in this section.
2.1 Petcoke Availability in US Petcoke is a byproduct of petroleum refineries. Coking feedstocks are generally a result of the heavy crude that cannot be further economically distilled or cracked into lighter components. Petcoke can be produced by delayed coking, fluid coking, and flexi coking. Fig 2.1. shows that the petcoke exports from US have increased steadily over recent years from US refineries. In 1999, US gulf coast refineries contributed 53.40% of US petcoke export quantities (10.36 out of 19.4 MMTPA of total US exports) while the
Californian refineries contributed 28.96% (5.62 out of 19.4 MMTPA of total US exports) of the total export.3,4
2.2 Overview of Combustion Systems Combustion is one of the oldest technologies and the most common method for generating steam. Earlier combustion processes were carried out in fixed beds, then in fluidized beds; the latest technology is at high-pressures. In general, combustion processes around the world use coal, biomass, heavy oil, and refinery wastes as their feedstock for generating steam.
In 2005, US utilities generated 652,312 MW of electricity. Of the total power generated, 62% was generated from combustion turbines, 11% from hydroelectric, 9% from gasification of hydrocarbons, and the remainder from other resources like nuclear power, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources Combined with gasification combustion technology could be seen here as the forerunner in power generation.5 Fig 2.2 shows the distribution of power generation by each sector in US in the year 2005.
Distribution of Pow er Production (2005)
Others 5%
Nuclear 13%
Combustion 62%
2.3 Combustion Technologies The two main combustion technologies widely used in the industry are: 1) Atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) 2) Pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC).
2.3.1 Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion (AFBC) Process In the AFBC process, feedstock is dried and ground to a suitable mesh size, usually in the range of 20 to 75 micrometers.6 It is then fed into the combustor along with excess air, which combusts it completely into products such as carbon dioxide (CO2) , water vapor (H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and other gaseous combustion products.7 Heat generated as a result of the combustion is used to generate steam, which is used in the steam turbine to generate power. Fig. 2.3 shows the combustion unit alone in detail.8 The AFBC combustion unit has a feed inlet that takes in petcoke and limestone. Air enters through the duct at the bottom of the combustor and oxidizes petcoke. Combustion takes place in the combustion chamber where the hydrocarbon is completely burned. Limestone reacts with the sulfur oxides and forms calcium sulfate. Hot flue gas that comes out of the combustor enters the precipitator, which removes ash from the combustion products. Stack gas free of ash exits the combustor and is fed into heat recovery system for steam generation.
A typical power generation process using the AFBC Combustion system is shown in Fig. 2.4. It shows the overall flow sheet with typical unit operations such as sulfur removal, heat recovery, NOx burners used in AFBC plant.
Fig. 2.4 - Typical unit operations flow sheet of the combustion process
2.3.2 Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion A PFBC system operates at an elevated pressure (above 4000 psia).9 The highpressure provides gaseous products adequate energy for turbine processes. PFBC
10
systems generally have higher efficiencies than the AFBC process since they use a combined cycle that consists of gas and steam turbines. Combusted products that come out at elevated pressures are expanded through a gas turbine cycle for additional power generation. The combined cycle ensures power generation during both gas and steam cycles resulting in higher efficiency than that of combined cycle gasification process. Fig 2.5 shows a typical PFBC.10 In PFBC, petcoke is combusted along with limestone, and the hot flue gas that comes out of the combustor enters the hot gas-cleaning system. Gas cleaning ensures that no sulfur oxides or nitrogen oxides enter the gas turbine section, since the gas turbine is very sensitive to these emission compounds. Since gas requires lower temperatures, the gas is cooled before the products of combustion are fed into the gas turbine. Steam generated during the gas cooling process is redirected to the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to be fed into the steam turbine for power generation. Emission control in PFBC is similar to the atmospheric combustion process. Sulfur dioxide is mainly controlled by the addition of limestone or dolomite.
11
2.4 Combustion Mechanisms Combustion involves a series of complex chemical reactions. The general approach is to break down the carbonaceous material into a series of equivalent simple reactions. These reactions take place in a systematic way involving following steps11:
12
2.4.1 Devolatilization and Volatile Combustion When petcoke is fed into the reactor, it decomposes into two main components: hydrogen-rich volatile fuel and carbon. The moisture content present in the feedstock after drying evaporates during the devolatilization process. Devolatilization and combustion are very fast in AFBC, with mean residence time from 0.4 to 5 seconds.11, 12 Since the reaction is fast enough to achieve equilibrium at small residence times, we modeled it with equivalent simple reactions involving combustion of elemental components using equilibrium reactors. The steps involved in this modeling of combustion chamber include: 1) Decomposition of petcoke into elemental components 2) Volatile combustion. Combustion of carbonaceous feedstock always involves complex reactions that are very difficult to model, since the kinetic constants for various series and parallel reactions are unknown. To simplify, the feedstock is decomposed into elemental components based on the ultimate analysis of the feedstock.11 Volatile combustion can be written as, Volatiles (HC) + O2 CO + H2O (1)
The main reactions considered in the modeling volatile combustion process are: C + O2 CO S + O2 SO2 -111 MJ/kmol -296 MJ/kmol (2) (3)
13
H2 + O2 H2O
-241 MJ/kmol
(4)
Exothermic volatile combustion reaction, mainly produce CO and H2O, and SO2 release rate is proportional to the char combustion rate.13
2.4.2 Char Combustion Char combustion mainly involves the formation of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The char combustion mechanism proposed by Gordon and Amundson takes into consideration two main reactions.14 They are: CO + O2 CO2 C + CO2 2 CO -283 MJ/kmol +172 MJ/kmol (5) (6)
The reactions that involve combustion of char (C) are heterogeneous, whereas the carbon dioxide formation reaction takes place in a homogenous phase. The reaction rates depend mainly on physical and chemical properties of char, and in modeling it is considered to take place at equilibrium conditions with fast reaction rates. Temperature is a main criterion for the first four reactions. At temperatures below 350oF, those reactions are predominant and above the temperature range reactions the last two are predominant.
2.4.3 NOx Formation During combustion with air, nitrogen present in the fuel or in air reacts with oxygen to form nitric oxide (NO), which reacts further to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2). In
14
addition, small amounts of N2O may be formed during the combustion process.11, 15 The main reactions involved in the formation of nitrogen oxides are given as: N2 + O2 NO N2 + O2 NO2 N2 + O2 N2O +34 MJ/kmol (7) -57 MJ/kmol (8) +82 MJ/kmol (9)
2.4.4 SO2 Adsorption in Limestone Forming Calcium Sulfate Limestone is fed into the reactor with coal. At elevated temperatures, limestone decomposes to calcium oxide, which reacts with sulfur dioxide formed during combustion to form calcium sulfate. The reactions are given as: CaCO3 CaO + CO2 CaO + SO2 + O2 CaSO4 (10) (11)
Conversion of SO2 is greatly influenced by the properties of CaCO3, and for simplicity in the modeling a conversion of 99% of SO2 to CaSO4 is assumed. This assumption is valid if the particle size distribution of CaCO3 is fine in the range of 1 to 50 microns. In our modeling, the CaCO3 particle size distribution is assumed to be same as that of petcoke, modeled within the range of 1 to 50 microns to avoid heterogeneity effects in the reactions 10 and 11.11
15
2.5 Heat Recovery and Power Generation The products of combustion are normally fed into heat exchangers to recover heat for generating steam. Steam thus generated is run through the steam turbine to generate power. The steam cycle was modeled using a Rankine cycle, as shown in the Fig. 2.6. The cycle begins as the fluid is pumped from a lower pressure (1 on Fig. 2.6) to a higher pressure (2); Wpump represents the work expended by the compressors. The fluid is heated by a boiler as shown by the curve from 2 to the isobar at 3. At that isobar, the high-pressure liquid is heated to a saturated-vapor stage. The saturated vapor expands as it follows an isentropic path from 3 to 4. The working fluid condenses along the path 4 to 1, with a heat rejection equivalent to Qout. Process 1 to 2 requires pumping of the fluid from low to higher pressure by the compressors.16
16
Wpump and Wturbine represent work in and work available in the Rankine cycle,
& is the mass flow rate of working fluid (steam) in the cycle, and m h1, h2, h3 and h4 are the enthalpies at specified points in the diagram.
17
F to 2800 oF to produce syngas that can be used to generate power or can be used as raw
material for synthesis of chemicals, liquid fuels or gaseous fuels like hydrogen. The oxidizing agent mainly used in gasification is pure oxygen. Sometimes air is also used as an oxidizing agent; in that case, the process is commonly referred to as air gasification. Steam is generally fed with the feed stream in a gasification process to increase the amount of hydrogen content in the product stream.2
18
Table 2.1 Gasification plants around the world with petcoke feedstock17
Gasification Technology GE Gasification E-Gas Gasification E-Gas Gasification GE Gasification Shell Gasification Process GE Gasification GE Gasification Location Ube City, Japan Lima, OH Terre Haute, IN Polk, FL Orissa, India Delaware City, DE El Dorado, KS Plant Output 793 MW 530 MW 262 MW 252 MW 180 MW 160 MW 35 MW
In addition to these, many gasification plants are coming up in US and in other parts of the world. Notable ones in the commissioning process are in Ohio; Corpus Christi (TX); Edwardsport, Indiana; and Taconite, Minnesota. Texaco gasification process is widely used around the world with total production around 20,000 MW. We chose Texaco process for the simulation model because of its wide use around the world.
19
Fig. 2.7 - Typical unit operations flow sheet of the gasification process
20
ASH
21
Fig. 2.9. shows a typical temperature profile of the gas and coal feedstock stream inside a Lurgi moving bed gasifier. In this process, the Boudard and methanation reactions begin before the oxygen is fully consumed. The gases exiting the gasification zone is used to devolatalize and dry the feedstock. Countercurrent flow ensures relatively higher methane content of the outlet gas.
22
streams must be fed with high velocity to ensure proper contact between the oxidant and feedstock stream. The Texaco and E-Gas gasifiers use this method for gasifying the hydrocarbon feedstock. Fig. 2.10 shows a typical entrained flow gasifier. Typical
particle size of feedstock for entrained flow gasifier is in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mm. Feedstock size is smaller than the fixed bed process to attain the fluidization in the bed.2 Typical residence times of the entrained flow process are around 0.5 to 2 s.
SYNGAS
Fig. 2.11 shows a typical temperature profile of the gas and coal feedstock stream inside a side-fired entrained bed gasifier. The temperature of petcoke increases linearly as the petcoke is consumed through the reactor, as shown in the temperature profile of
23
the gasifier. This mainly reflects the fact that water vapor is evaporated first, before gasification reactions takes place.2
24
2.12 shows a typical fluidized bed gasifier. Typical particle size of feedstock for fluidized bed gasifier is in the range of 1 to 5 mm.2 Typical residence time for fluidized bed are also similar to entrained flow gasifier around 0.5 to 2 s.19
SYNGAS
Fluidized Bed
ASH
Fig. 2.13 shows a typical temperature profile of the gas and petcoke feedstock stream inside a fluidized bed gasifier
25
CO
-111 MJ/kmol
(16)
26
CO + O2 H2 + O2
(17) (18)
absolute pressure of the gas. From Boudard reaction we can clearly see that formation of CO is greatly dependent on the pressure. Increase in pressure favors the forward reaction and therefore formation of CO.
CO
PH 2
PH 2O
(VCO V H 2 ) V H 2O
.P , where P is
the total absolute pressure of the gas. Similarly, reaction 17 is also greatly dependent on the pressure. An increase in pressure favors the forward reaction and favors the formation of CO.
27
In the case of complete conversion of carbon in the feedstock, the Boudouard reaction, the water-gas reaction, and the methanation reaction can be combined into two homogenous reactions namely the CO shift reaction and steam methane reforming reaction.
These are the main reactions that take place during the solid hydrocarbon gasification process. The equilibrium constant for Eq. 23 is given as:
28
reasons to carry out gasification reaction at higher pressures, which favors forward reaction in all the above reactions.
29
Combustion modeling is explained in this section. The combustion process is divided into six main sections: feedstock preparation, combustion unit, heat recovery unit, power generation unit, sulfur recovery unit, and NOx control measures.
30
3.2 Feedstock
We used the composition of Tuscaloosa petcoke to model the petcoke feedstock in the simulation processes.22 Tuscaloosa petcoke was chosen for two main reasons. 1. Tuscaloosa petcoke composition generalizes a typical gulf coast petcoke composition. 2. Tuscaloosa petcoke has higher sulfur content of 5.3 wt%. By modeling this process with high sulfur petcoke and curtailing the emissions, we ensured that our model will fit all other best available petcoke with lower sulfur content.
31
The proximate and ultimate analysis of the petcoke used in modeling is given in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. This process is modeled using the stoichiometric reactor in Aspen Plus.
32
3.3.1 Crushing
Crushing is a critical feature of the combustion process. The feedstock should be finely ground before being fed into the combustor. Fine particle size increases the burning capacity, facilitates storage and transportation because of its uniform size distribution.
The feedstock is normally stored in a silo and fed into the combustor through a hopper. For the pressurized fluidized combustion process, it is fed through a special hopper called a lock hopper that pressurizes the feedstock to up to 250 psia before it is fed into the combustor. The process model assumes that petcoke is crushed to a size range from 1 to 50 microns. The conversion efficiency depends on the particle size; particles in the range of 500 or more microns decrease the conversion of carbon.
3.3.2 Drying
Drying is often an integral part of the feedstock preparation. The drying operation is carried out in an inert atmosphere with nitrogen as the inert medium. Nitrogen is used to remove excess moisture content from the feedstock. Since Tuscaloosa petcoke has only 0.9 wt% of moisture content, the drying process is not included in the process model. Coal, biomass, and other feedstocks may have much higher moisture content (5 to 25 wt%) and would require the drying process.
33
In the atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) process, the small fluidization velocity reduces the amount of feedstock material leaving the reactor, so it is not recycled. The efficiency of AFBC process reported on an average in the literature varies from 25 to 30%.21, 22
34
the range of 10 to 25 wt%, the drying process becomes inevitable. If drying is not employed for wet feedstock, combustion requires more preheat. The important parameters for modeling the crusher are the hardgrove grindability index (HGI) and the bond work index. HGI is a relative grindability measure to define the hardness of the petcoke feedstock with that of coal. The bond work index is a simple measure of minimum percentage of feedstock that should pass through the required mesh size. In our case, a work index value of 80 was used to model the crusher with a mesh size ranging from 1 to 50 microns. The petcoke from the crusher is fed into the decomposition reactor. The decomposition reactor serves to break the non-conventional petcoke feedstock into its constituent elements. The petcoke that comes out of the decomposer flows into the combustor. Air enters the combustor to oxidize the feedstock. The air stream is modeled with a molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen as 79 to 21. The air stream enters the combustor at a temperature of 77oF and a pressure of 14.7 psia.
Combustion reactions in the combustor are modeled by identifying the possible products. The products that are likely to be formed in a combustion reaction were entered as main parameters for the combustor. The combustion reactions are assumed to take place a temperature of 1,800oF. This temperature was decided after a wide range of sensitivity analysis so as to minimize the emission compounds from the combustor. This assumption is based on the normal temperature range for combustion reaction of 1,400 to 2,200oF8. This assumption is valid for conventional combustion reactions, even though nowadays combustion temperatures could go as high as 5,000oF with the use of
35
special ceramic reactors.22 By maintaining the lower temperature in the combustor with the help of coolant jacketed system, we generate heat. This heat stream is directed to the secondary heat recovery section, where secondary steam is generated.
The flue gas that comes out of the combustor has ash and some other solid impurities. These are removed by a cyclone separator. Despite its high installation cost, the main advantage of the cyclone over bag filters is that the cyclone can operate at high temperatures. Bag filters are normally limited to a temperature range of 300 to 500oF. The ash-free gas then flows into the calcinizer, which is modeled by a stoichiometric reactor where the calcination reactions are assumed to take place. The reactions are given as: CaCO3 CaO + CO2 CaSO4 (24) (25)
The limestone stream enters the calcinizer, which is at the exact temperature and pressure conditions of combustor (1,800oF and 14.7 psia). At this high temperature, calcium carbonate breaks down into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide as indicated Eq. 24. Calcium oxide in turn reacts with the sulfur dioxide at this elevated temperature to form calcium sulfate. This is modeled by Eq. 25. The stoichiometric conversions of CaCO3 and CaO in the first and second reactions were assumed to be complete. This assumption is valid since the modern cleanup technologies operate nearly at 100% conversion of sulfur oxides to calcium sulfate.
36
The ash-free flue gas flows at a temperature of 1,800oF from the calcinizer into the heat recovery section of the process. This is described in the following section. Fig. 3.1 shows the typical flow diagram of the feedstock preparation and combustion process. The main unit operations modeled in the feedstock preparation and combustion section are described in Table 3.3.
37
Table 3.3 Important parameters used for modeling the combustion section
Unit Operation Crusher (CRUSHER) Reactor (DECOMP) Equilibrium Reactor (COMBUSTO) Separator (CYCLONE) Calcinizing Reactor (CALCINIZ) Modeling Parameters Used Maximum Particle Diameter = 50 m Bond Work index = 80 Hardgrove Grindability Index = 55 Pressure = 14.7 psia o Temperature = 77 F Pressure = 14.7 psia o Temperature = 1800 F 1 Efficiency Correlation = Leith-Licht Diameter = 0.5ft Pressure = 14.7 psia o Temperature = 1800 F
38
T = 1434 oF
Flue gas leaving the combustion section is at a temperature of 1,800oF enters the steam recovery section. It is modeled by three heat exchangers: the economizer, the evaporator, and the superheater. These heat exchangers are modeled as countercurrent
39
process. Cooling water enters the economizer, whereas hot flue gas enters the superheater. Coolant is pumped to a pressure of 2,175 psia. The pump is modeled with an isentropic and mechanical efficiency of 0.92. Water at 2,175 psia enters the economizer with a temperature approach of 46oF. Approach temperature was determined by the sensitivity analysis of the economizer. The coolant stream attained vapor fraction at a saturation temperature of 660oF; the heat duty increased above this temperature without any change in the quality of steam.
The saturated coolant stream from the economizer enters the evaporator, which is mainly used for the phase change by supplying latent heat of vaporization. The vapor fraction of the coolant that comes out of the evaporator is modeled to be equal to 1. Coolant then enters the superheater of the heat recovery section. Here the coolant water, which is in the form of saturated vapor, is superheated; the superheat temperature of 1112oF was decided as the temperature of the outlet steam based on the heat duty of the super heater.24 The flue gas, that enters the superheater, evaporator, and economizer undergoes temperature reduction and comes out of the economizer as cool gas at a temperature of 194oF.
The pinch point is an important part of the power generation process. The steps of our simple algorithmic approach to determine pinch point are:
40
2. Once the arbitrary values are set, construct a flow rate and pressure
matrix at which steam has to be generated.
3. Continue the process until we approach the optimum pinch point which
maximizes the power generation. Care should be taken during this analysis. If crossover of temperature is observed in conducting the analysis, it will violate the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat should transfer from hot to a cold substance. Care should also be taken in generating steam from the superheater. Steam generated from the superheater should be in the superheated vapor form for the given pressure and temperature conditions. Obtaining optimum values of pinch point temperature reduces the cost of the heat exchanger. Good pinch point analysis achieves better process integration by maximizing heat recovery and simultaneously reducing the cost of heat exchangers.8
Pinch point analysis is an important parameter in determining the total heat available for power generation. The main aim is to transfer the amount of heat as much as possible from the hot stream to the cold stream. In maximizing the heat transfer, care should be taken to avoid the crossover of temperature. Sensitivity analysis was carried out initially by varying two process parameters, the pressure of the outlet steam stream and the flow rate of steam to be generated. During these analyses, we ensured that there is no temperature crossover occurred. The flow rate of the feed water was varied along with various pressure ranges. Table 3.4 shows the sensitivity values with power generated from steam turbines.
41
Table 3.4 Power generation matrix with feed water flow rate and pressure
Flow Rate (lb/hr) Pressure (psia) Flue Gas Outlet Temperature o ( F) 192.09 192.11 192.13 196.28 203.42 212.32 104.21 104.24 103.26 107.57 115.00 124.31 88.45 88.63 88.72 88.81 88.97 89.17 Power Generated from Highpressure Steam Turbine (HP) 3216.28 3214.33 3216.46 3211.65 3203.38 3193.03 3269.22 3270.64 3272.07 3267.01 3258.33 3247.45 3301.01 3275.87 3276.38 3276.83 3272.05 3260.67 Power Generated from Lowpressure Steam Turbine (HP) 713.51 711.67 709.88 708.73 706.76 704.30 713.51 718.89 720.31 721.74 720.53 718.47 728.28 722.30 722.42 722.53 721.39 718.69 Crossover Detected (Y/N) N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
8578
9005
9105
1600 1800 1900 2000 2175 2400 1600 1800 1900 2000 2175 2400 1600 1800 1900 2000 2175 2400
From the Table 3.4 we can see that crossover is detected after a certain flow rate and pressure range. Once we identified the optimum values of flow rate and pressure, we set them as the fixed parameters for deciding various other optimum parameters. And other main parameter is the outlet superheat temperature. The superheat temperature was varied from 700oF to 1,200oF. By varying these values, we could analyze the power generated from the steam turbines. Power generation increased with the temperature, as shown in Fig. 3.4. The heat transferred normally to a temperature of 1,118oF; once that superheat temperature increased a range crossover was detected. Hence the optimum superheat temperature was found as 1,118oF.
42
Heat generated from the combustor is used for secondary steam generation. Water is used as the coolant. Water gets heated up and is pumped to a pressure of 2,175 psia. This is done to maintain the same pressure of the steam coming out of the superheater. The steam streams are mixed and fed into the power generation section. Fig. 3.5 and Table 3.5 describe the flow diagram and unit operations used in the heat recovery section of the flow sheet.
43
Table 3.5 Important parameters used for modeling the heat recovery section
Unit Operation HeatExchanger (ECONOMIZ) HeatExchanger (EVAPORA) HeatExchanger (SHEATER) Heater (HEATX1) Pump (PUMP2) Mixer (MIXER3) Modeling Parameters Used Cold Stream Outlet Vapor Fraction = 0 o Minimum Temperature Approach = 10 F Cold Stream Outlet Vapor Fraction = 1 o Minimum Temperature Approach = 10 F Cold Stream Outlet Temperature = 1100 F o Minimum Temperature Approach = 10 F Pressure = 14.7 psia Discharge Pressure = 2175.56 psia Pressure = 2175 psia
o
3.7 Modeling the Heat Recovery Unit (HRU) and Steam Generation
Power generation is modeled by Rankine cycle (Fig. 2.6). Steam that comes out of the heat recovery and secondary heat recovery sections is routed to the steam turbine of
44
the power generation section. The Rankine cycle consists of two steam turbines. One operates at a high-pressure of 174 psia and other operates at a low-pressure of 14.7 psia. The main advantage of using the Rankine cycle is its higher efficiency than other power generation cycles. This is because of the efficient use of the low-pressure steam. The steam coming out of the high-pressure steam turbine is split into two different streams. One is fed to the low-pressure turbine and other to the condensed liquid that comes out after passing through the low-pressure turbine and condenser.
The turbines are assumed to be isentropic with isentropic efficiency of 0.92 and mechanical efficiency of 0.95.16 A mixer is used to mix both steam streams, one from the main heat recovery section and other from the secondary heat recovery section. The mixed steam stream then enters the high-pressure steam turbine modeled by a highpressure turbine. Steam from the high-pressure turbine is split into two streams; one is fed into the low-pressure turbine and other is rerouted to a mixer. The steam that comes out of the low-pressure turbine enters the condenser. Cooled steam condensate coming out of the condenser is pumped to a discharge pressure of 174 psia. It is then mixed with the split stream from the high-pressure turbine using a mixer. The mixed steam stream is then recycled back to economizer. Fig. 3.6 and Table 3.6 are the flow diagram and unit operations used in the power generation section of the flow sheet.
45
Table 3.6 Important parameters used for modeling the steam cycle section
Unit Operation Mixer (MIXER3) Turbine (HPSTTURB) Feed Splitter (SPLITTER) Turbine (LPSTTURB) Heater (CONDENSE) Mixer (MIXER) Modeling Parameters Used Pressure = 2175 psia Discharge Pressure = 174 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Mechanical Efficiency = 0.95 Split Fraction of STEAM31 = 0.2368 Discharge Pressure = 14.7 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Mechanical Efficiency = 0.95 Pressure = 14.7 psia Degrees of Sub-cooling = 0 Pressure = 174 psia
46
The flue gas that exits contains mainly CO2, H2O, O2, N2, and traces of SO3 and NOx gases.
47
These reactions are generally fast and the gas that comes out the process is free of NOx pollutants. Since NOx gases coming out of combustor is negligible, nitrogen oxide removal process was not modeled.
48
4.
The gasification process is explained in this section. The gasification process is divided into five main sections: gasification island, gas cooling, gas cleanup, gas turbine section and steam cycle.
Cleaned gas is then sent to the combined cycle section consisting of gas and steam turbine for further power generation.
49
The gasification process is as fast as the combustion process, with mean residence times from 0.4 to 5 seconds.2 Since the reaction is fast, we modeled it with simple reactions involving gasification of elemental components. The ultimate and proximate analyses of the petcoke used in the modeling have been described previously.
50
from the crusher is fed into the gasification reactor. This reactor is modeled by a twostage process with a yield reactor followed by equilibrium reactor. The yield reactor virtually breaks the non conventional petcoke feedstock into its constituent elements. Petcoke that comes out of the decomposition reactor flows into the equilibrium reactor. The gasifier was modeled using equilibrium reactions. The oxidant, which consists of 95 mol% O2 and 5 mol% N2, enters the gasifier for the gasification reactions to take place along with a separate stream of steam. The oxidant stream is pressurized to a pressure of 610 psia. This is done to achieve a pressure range closer to that of steam, which enters the gasifier at a temperature of 487oF and a pressure of 600 psia. The pressure was selected based on the emission components and mixture composition coming out of the gasifier.
Gasification reactions in the gasifier are modeled by identifying the possible products. The products that are likely to be formed in a gasification reaction were entered as the main parameters for the gasifier. The gasification reactions are assumed to take place at a temperature of 2,552oF. This temperature was based on a sensitivity analysis within the temperature range for the gasification reaction of 2,200 to 2,700oF. The temperature showed maximum CO and H2 concentration at that temperature with lowest emissions compounds like sulfur trioxide and H2S. (This is described in detail in the following section.) Once the gasification process is complete, the syngas is fed into cyclone separators to remove ash.25 The ash free gas then flows into the gas cooling
51
section. Fig. 4.1 shows the typical flow diagram of gasification island. The main unit operations modeled in the gasification island are described in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Important parameters used for modeling the gasification island section
Unit Operation Pump (GSPUMP) Heat Exchanger (BOILER) Pressure Changers (GSCOMPRE) Stoichiometric Reactor (DECOMPS) EQUILIBRIUM (GSGASIFI) Cyclone (ASHREM1) Cyclone (ASHREM2) Important Parameters Used Pressure = 435 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Pressure = 600 psia o Temperature = 487 F Pressure = 610 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Pressure = 600 psia o Temperature = 77 F Pressure = 610 psia o Temperature = 2552 F Efficiency Correlation = Leith - Licht Diameter = 0.5m Efficiency Correlation = Leith Licht Diameter = 0.1m
52
53
54
55
Table 4.2 Important parameters used for modeling the gas cooling section
Unit Operation Heat Exchanger (COOLER1) Heat Exchanger (COOLER2) Heat Exchanger (COOLER3) Important Parameters Used Operating Pressure = 600 psia o Outlet Temperature = 1500 F Operating Pressure = 600 psia o Outlet Temperature = 750 F Pressure = 600 psia o Outlet Temperature = 500 F
The Claus process involves burning one-third of the H2S with air in a reactor furnace to form sulfur dioxide (SO2) according to the following reaction,
56
(33)
The normal operating range of the Claus furnace is from 1,800 to 2,800F with pressures slightly higher than atmospheric. The gas then enters a heat exchanger where the heat is recovered. Sulfur condenses through the separator and almost 60 to 65% of sulfur is recovered by this process. The steam generated by the heat exchanger is redirected to the HRSG where it can be used. The gas stream then enters the Claus separator where converted sulfur is recovered with 99% efficiency, and then fed into the Claus reactor, where the remaining two-thirds of the unreacted hydrogen sulfide is converted to sulfur by the following reaction,
2 H2S + SO2 3S + 2H2O (34)
Claus separation was modeled at an operating temperature of 360F and 10 psig. The recovery of this stage is also around 98 to 99%. A sulfur free stream of syngas enters the gas turbine section for further power generation. Fig. 4.3 shows the typical flow diagram of the Claus process. The main unit operations modeled in the Claus process are described in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Important parameters used for modeling the gas cleanup section
Unit Operation Reactor (CFURNACE) Heat Exchanger (COOLER5) Separator (CLAUSSP1) Heat exchanger (CLAUSHR2) Reactor (CFURNAC2) Separator (CLAUSSP2) Heat Exchanger (REHEATER) Important Parameters Used Pressure = 24.7 psia o Operating Temperature = 2012 F Pressure = 24.7 psia o Outlet Temperature = 240 F Pressure = 24.7 psia Pressure = 24.7 psia o Outlet Temperature = 495 F Pressure = 24.7 psia Pressure = 24.7 psia Outlet Pressure = 250 psia o Outlet Temperature = 700 F
57
58
Cooled sulfur-free syngas then enters the gas turbine section. Air and nitrogen also enter the gas turbine compressor, which is modeled as is three stages with compressors. The gas is compressed to pressures 10 times higher than the atmospheric pressure.2, 16 The compressed gas stream then flows into the gas turbine combustor. The combustor is modeled using a stoichiometric reactor. The products of incomplete combustion undergo complete combustion in the combustion furnace. Products of combustion in the gas turbine cycle then enter the three-stage gas turbine unit. Exhaust gas coming out of gas turbine section is routed to the HRSG section for generating steam through heat recovery. The isentropic efficiency for the compressors and expanders were assumed to be 92%, as cited in the literature.16 Fig. 4.4 shows a typical flow diagram of the gas turbine section modeled in Aspen. The main unit operations modeled in the gas turbine cycle is described in Table 4.4.
59
60
Table 4.4 Important parameters used for modeling the gas turbine section
Unit Operation Compressor (GTCOMP1) Compressor (GTCOMP2) Compressor (GTCOMP3) Reactor (GTRXTR) Expander (GASTURB1) Expander (GASTURB2) Expander (GASTURB3) Important Parameters Used Outlet Pressure = 50 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Outlet Pressure = 150 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Outlet Pressure = 250 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Pressure = 206 psia o Temperature = 2200 F Outlet Pressure = 100 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Outlet Pressure = 50 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Outlet Pressure = 14.7 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92
61
generated from the heat-recovery units is redirected to boiler of steam turbine section, where steam is generated using boiler feed water.
The turbines are assumed to be isentropic to model the way used in the Texaco gasification process with isentropic efficiency of 0.92. A mixer is used to mix the steam streams, one from the heat recovery section and the other from secondary heat recovery section. The mixed steam stream then enters the high-pressure steam turbine. The steam stream from the high-pressure turbine is split into two streams; one is fed into the lowpressure turbine and other stream is rerouted to the mixer. The steam which comes out of the low-pressure turbine enters the condenser. The cooled steam condensate coming out of the condenser is pumped to a discharge pressure of 174 psia. It is then mixed with the split stream from the high-pressure turbine using a mixer. Mixed steam stream is then
62
recycled back to the economizer. Fig. 4.5 and Table 4.5 describe the flow diagram and unit operations used in the steam power generation section of the flow sheet.
Table 4.5 Important parameters used for modeling the steam turbine section
Unit Operation Heat Exchanger (HRSG1) Heat Exchanger (HRSG2) Heat Exchanger (REBOILER) Important Parameters Used o Temperature = 750 F o Temperature = 550 F o Temperature = 1112 F Pressure = 2175 psia Discharge Pressure = 174 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Mechanical Efficiency = 0.95 Discharge Pressure = 14.7 psia Isentropic Efficiency = 0.92 Mechanical Efficiency = 0.95 Pressure = 14.7 psia Degrees of Sub-cooling = 0 Pressure = 175 psia Discharge Pressure = 175 psia
Compressor (HPSTTURB)
63
64
Sensitivity analysis of both processes is discussed in detail in this section. Both processes have certain parameters such as temperature, pressure, and flow rate of steam and oxidant that control the overall efficiency. The sensitivity analysis was carried out by varying these parameters within the range cited in the literature.
65
66
From Figs. 5.2 and 5.3 we can clearly see that at around 2,550oF both carbon monoxide and hydrogen attain maximum concentration in the syngas. At very high temperatures (around 2,700 2,800oF) the concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen starts decreasing. This is because both carbon monoxide and hydrogen are unstable at high temperatures and convert into completely combustible products such as CO2 and H2O if the oxygen supply is sufficient. H2S, is the main harmful effluent which comes out of the gasifier, also varies with increase in temperatures. Fig. 5.3 shows the variation of hydrogen sulfide with temperature.
Fig. 5.3 - Hydrogen sulfide flow rate variation with gasification temperature
67
68
Fig. 5.4 Flow rate of components with variation in oxygen in the gasification
69
Fig. 5.5 Flow rate of components with variation in steam in the gasification
70
was found to be around 30 psia. The low-pressure steam turbine should not drop below 23 psia because the enthalpy drop available becomes very small and volume flow becomes very large.27
71
major roles in determining the combustion efficiency. The sensitivity analysis with variation to these parameters is shown below. .
The sulfur dioxide produced during the combustion process reacts with the calcium oxide to produce calcium sulfate. The sulfur trioxide formed doesnt react with the calcium oxide, and should be minimized in the flue gas because it is known to produce acid rain. Because sulfur trioxide formation increases as the air supply is increased, the stoichiometric air supply of 102% was assumed in the process to minimize the emission of SO3 in the flue gas. As a validation in the simulation process, emission of SO3 was nearly equal to zero.
72
Fig. 5.7 Sulfur oxide flow rate with air in the combustion process
Fig. 5.8 shows the amount of CO2 produced with the air supplied. As expected, the produced CO2 reaches its maximum value at the stoichiometric amount of air required for complete combustion.
73
Fig. 5.8 - Carbon dioxide flow rate with air in the combustion process
74
Fig. 5.9 - Sulfur oxide emission with temperature in the combustion process
We observe from the plot that the amount of sulfur dioxide formed increases with increase in temperature, whereas formation of sulfur trioxide decreases with temperature. This is because sulfur dioxide is more stable than sulfur trioxide at higher temperatures. Fig. 5.10 shows that the process efficiency decreases with temperature. This is because at high temperatures the available heat duty decreases and thereby decreases the combustion efficiency. However, higher temperature minimizes SO3 emission. As a result, we use 1,800oF was used for the operating temperature, and after considering the entire power load of the utilities, the overall process efficiency was 32%. The equation used for calculating the efficiency is given as:
& Petcoke x LHVPetcoke) Overall = (WNE x 3600 x OH) / ( m
(35)
75
Fig. 5.11 shows the increase in available heat load with variation in temperature. If we were able to cool the system to a lower temperature, amount of heat available for steam generation would be more. This results in an increase in power production, which could account for better efficiency at lower temperatures. However, the two main reasons for choosing 1,800oF as operating temperature are:
76
1. If we allow the combustion reaction to take place without a control in the temperature, it would reach around 3,600oF. Designing reactors that could handle that very high temperature would be expensive. 2. After wide sensitivity analysis, 1,800oF was found to be a feasible temperature within the range cited in literature and also to result in lower nitrogen oxide emissions.
77
emission of pollutant gases and particulate matter in both gasification and combustion processes.
78
79
assumed. From Fig. 5.12, we observe that the amount of CO2 in the combustion process is 2.78 lb/kWh, compared to the gasification process at 1.81 lb/kWh.
CO2 Em ission 3
80
acid gas removal unit contains filters6 that retain the rest of the solids required for achieving a particle matter concentration lower than 0.005, which is the gas turbine specification.
5.4 Power Consumption and Generation by the Utilities in the Combustion Process
Overall power generated by the process units and utilities load in the combustion model is given in the Table 5.3.
81
Table 5.3 Power generated and utilities load in the combustion process
Process Power Generated / Load (MW)
Power Generated (Heat and Shaft Power) Combustor High-pressure Steam Turbine Low-pressure Steam Turbine Total Available Power Major Utilities Power Load Crushing Bag Filter Calcinizer Heat Exchanger Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Sulfur Separator -0.0049 -0.0001 -0.0532 -5.15 -0.163 -0.022 -0.0027 -0.0002 5.40 2.38 0.52 +8.30
-5.39 +2.91
5.5 Power Consumption and Generation by the Utilities in the Gasification Process
Overall power generated by the process units and utilities load in the gasification model is given in the Table 5.4.
82
Table 5.4 Power generated and utilities load in the gasification process
Process Power Generated / Load (MW)
Power Generated Gas Turbines Steam Turbines Cooling Section Total Available Power Major Utilities Power Load Crusher Heater Claus Process Gas Compressors HRSG Section Total Utilities Load Overall Power Generated -0.0049 -0.14 -0.273 -1.80 -1.51 -3.73 +3.89 6.42 1.02 0.18 +7.62
83
(36)
Where overall is the overall plant efficiency, WNE is the total energy generated by the
& Petcoke is the mass flow rate plant, OH is the total operating hours available in a year, m
of petcoke, and LHVPetcoke is the lower heating value of petcoke. Substituting, the assumption of 300 days of plant availability, we get:
& Petcoke = 2135 lb/hr = 2135 x 24 x 300 x 0.00045359 m
= 6972 tons/yr
(37)
84
Plant economics play an important role in deciding whether the process is efficient or not. This section explains the capital expenditures for commissioning unit operations of gasification and combustion processes.
85
Pump
28000( N ST ) 0.5575 1.41 11400( N TE ) 0.5575 1.41 1600( M G / CC ) 0.917 1.41 51500( N ST ) 0.5129 1.41 126000( N TE ) 0.5885 1.41 93500( N TE ) 0.4425 1.41 633000( N ST ) 0.398 1.41 3800( N GT ) 0.754 1.41 398000( N ST ) 0.333 1.41
0.1 x TCI
Compressor
Gasifier
Heat Exchanger
Sulfur removal
Particulate Separator
Steam Turbine
Gas Turbines
Condenser
Auxiliary Services
NST = Power generated by steam cycle (in MW) NGT = Power generated by gas turbine cycle (in MW) NTE = Power generated by both steam cycle and gas turbine cycle (in MW) MG/CC = Flow rate of petcoke (kg/hr) TCI = Total Capital Investment (in $)
86
Personnel Cost
Feedstock Cost
0.75( M F )
0.03 x TCI
Maintenance Cost
0.01 x TCI
MA = Flow rate of Ash (in kg/hr) MF = Flow rate of petcoke in terms of energy (in MMBTU/yr) nP = Number of personnel working in the plant TCI = Total Capital Investment (in $)
87
expenditures are estimated as USD 2.31 million for a 2.91 MW power plant. Normalized capital cost is found to be 915 USD/kW. Table 6.3 shows the important correlations used for calculating capital expenditures of certain unit operations.
88
Unit Operation
Pump
28000( N TE ) 0.5575 1.41 11400( N TE ) 0.5575 1.41 134000( N TE ) 0.694 1.41 51500( N TE ) 0.5129 1.41 126000( N TE ) 0.5885 1.41 93500( N TE ) 0.4425 1.41 633000( N TE ) 0.398 1.41
Compressor
Combustor
Heat Exchanger
Calcinizer
Particulate Separator
Steam Turbine
89
Personnel Cost
Feedstock Cost
0.75( M F )
0.03 x TCI
Maintenance Cost
0.01 x TCI
MA = Flow rate of Ash (in kg/hr) MF = Flow rate of petcoke in terms of energy (in MMBTU/yr) nP = Number of personnel working in combustion plant TCI = Total Capital Investment of combustion plant (in $)
90
91
6 4 2 0 -2 0 -4 -6 -8 Years
Gasification Profiit Combustion Profit
Break Even Point
10
20
30
Gasification Profiit
6 4 2 0 0 5 10
Gasification Payback
15
20
92
ASU 9%
Clean Up 1%
Heat Recovery 2%
93
The main assumptions used in calculating the revenue and profit are given in Table 6.5.
Availability of Plant
300 Days/yr
Electricity Cost
7.82 cents / kW
Sulfur Cost Number of Personnel for Gasification Plant Number of Personnel for Combustion Plant 1 Euro
1$ / 1 lb 30 20 1.41 Dollars
Since total sulfur produced in the model is negligible, we neglected the cost that it could add to the revenue. For a large-scale gasification process, sulfur is valuable by product.
94
7.1 Conclusions
Process models of both processes were carried out with Tuscaloosa petcoke feedstock composition, which is typical for refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Modeling results indicate that for 2135 lbm / hr of petcoke, combustion will generate about 2.91 MW and gasification will generate 3.89 MW of net available power. Optimal overall efficiency of the gasification process is computed as 41%, and for the combustion process it is computed as 31%. Optimum values of process variables are shown in Table 7.1.
Temperature ( F) Pressure ( psia) Steam (lbmol / lbm of Petcoke) Air (% Stoichiometric air required)
Temperature ( F) Pressure ( psia) Steam (lbmol / lbm of Petcoke) Oxygen (lbmol / lbm of Petcoke)
95
Cost analysis shows that gasification has an upper edge over combustion, despite its high capital expenditure. Both processes have a rate of return greater than 30% with certain assumptions such as operating hours, petcoke composition used, personnel required, and plant facilities. Combustion and gasification processes break even at around 14 yrs after the initial production. This breakeven solely depends on the profits, which in turn are affected by major factors like gas price, demand, and supply. Even though petcoke exports have increased over the period of years shown in Fig. 1.1, industries in US can consider using available petcoke instead of exporting it to meet their power needs by adopting either of the two processes, depending on the requirements.
96
NOMENCLATURE
= work done by pump shaft, MW = work done by turbine shaft, MW = heat supplied to unit operation, MMBTU/hr = heat rejected from the unit operation, MMBTU/hr = steam mass flow rate, lb/hr = mass enthalpy of stream i, BTU/lb = thermal efficiency of cycle, % = Flow rate of petcoke, kg/hr = Flow rate of Ash, kg/hr = Flow rate of petcoke in terms of energy, MMBTU/yr = power generated by steam cycle, MW = power generated by gas turbine cycle, MW = power generated by both steam cycle and gas turbine cycle, MW = number of personnel working in combustion plant = volume of fluid entering the unit operation block, ft3/hr = pressure, psia = work done by the unit operation, MW = efficiency of the unit operation block = overall enthalpy of the stream i, MMBTU/hr = internal energy of the stream i, MMBTU/hr
hi
Hi Ui
97
Ein Eout v g z hR Ni
hf h
o
= overall energy of the inlet stream, MMBTU/hr = overall energy of the outlet stream, MMBTU/hr = velocity of the stream i, ft/s = acceleration due to gravity, ft2/s = datum height, ft = heat of reaction, = number of moles of the stream i = heat of formation of the component, kJ/kmol = sensible enthalpy of the component at 298 K and 1 atm, kJ/kmol = compression ratio of inlet to outlet pressure = universal gas constant, kJ/kmol K = temperature of the stream i, oF = specific heat at constant pressure, kJ/kmol K = specific heat at constant volume, kJ/kmol K
R Ti cp cv
98
REFERENCES
1. Aspen Plus 12.1 User Guide, Aspen Technology Inc, Burlington, MA, 2003. 2. Higman, C and van Der Burgt, M.: Gasification, 1-210, Elsevier, Burlington, MA, 2003. 3. Economides, C., Barrufet, M.A., and Jayakumar, R.: Comparing Combustion and Syngas Processes Using Petroleum Coke (Pet-Coke) and Coal for Industrial Heat and Power Generation, Reservoir (December 2006), 5. 4. Annual Electric Generator Report, Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html, accessed August 2006. 5. Davila, M., and Fraser J.: Petcoke Study presented at 2004 HYLSAMEX Technology Conference, Monterrey, Mexico, February 2004. 6. Yaverbaum, L.: Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal and Waste Materials, 10-29, Noyes Publications, Bracknell, UK, 1977. 7. Nielsen, W.: Combustion Incineration Process, 24-53, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, NY, 2002. 8. Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion Technology Process http://www.gec.jp/ctt_data/AIR/AIR_2/img/TAFIG-093-1.gif, accessed 22 February 2007. 9. Singer, S.: Pulverized Coal Combustion: Recent Developments, Noyes Publications, Bracknell, UK, 1984.
99
10. Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion, http://www.nire.go.jp/hist/199701/nire_www/eco_tec/new_kort/gif/132e.gif, accessed May 2007. 11. Sotudeh, G.R., Legros, R., Cahouki, J., and Paris, J.: Simulation of Circulating Fluidized Bed Reactors Using Aspen Plus, Fuel, 77, No 4 (1998) 327-337. 12. Oka, S.N.: Fluidized Bed Combustion, 78-105, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, 2004. 13. Rajan, S. et al.: Combustion of Char-Coal Waste Pellets for High Efficiency http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/208390jv8bb/webviewable/208390.pdf, February 2006. 14. Gordon, A.L. and Amundson, N.R.: "Modeling of Fluidized Bed Reactors-IV,"
Chen. Engg Science, 31(1976), 1163-1178.
15. Lawrence, A.A.: Nitrogen Oxides Emission Control, 53-60, Noyes Publication, Bracknell, UK, 1972. 16. Cengel, Y.A., and Boyles, M.A.: Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 42-108, William C Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA, 2002. 17. NETL: Reference Shelf - Gasification Database, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/database/database .html, accessed Feb 2007. 18. Nowacki, P.: Coal Gasification Process, 56-63, Noyes Publication, Bracknell, UK, 1981. 19. Williams, A.: Combustion and Gasification of Coal, 112-125, CRC Press, New York, 2000.
100
20. Johnson, J.L.: Kinetics of Coal Gasification: A Compilation of Research, 120134, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 1980. 21. Souza-Santos, M.L.: Solid Fuels Combustion and Gasification: Modeling,
Simulation, and Equipment Operation, 33-57, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York,
2004. 22. Zygarlicke, J.C et al.: Task 3.0 Advanced Power Systems, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/7460-paw7HK/native/7460.PDF (1998), accessed October 2005. 23. Ragaland, A.V & Stenzel, W.: Combined Cycle Heat Recovery Optimization http://www.soapp.com/papers/CC_Heat_Recovery.pdf (2000), accessed March 2006. 24. Thermoflex User Manual, 4-20, General Electric Inc, Houston, 2004. 25. Kohl, A. et al.: Gas Purification, 13-69, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, 1997. 26. Claus Process, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_process, accessed July 2006. 27. Bachman, R et al.: Combined - Cycle Gas & Steam Turbine Power Plants, Penwell Books, Tulsa, OK, 1999. 28. EPA. Clear Skies, http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies, accessed July 2006. 29. Caputo, A.C et al.: Economics of Biomass Energy Utilization in Combustion and Gasification Plants: Effects of logistic variables, Bio Mass and Energy,
Elsevier, 28 (2005) 35-51.
101
31. Sandy, C.E.: Biomass to Hydrogen Renewables to Hydrogen http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/renewablesForum/pdf/biomass_thomas.pdf, (2004), accessed August 2007. 32. Rezaiyan, J and Cheremisinoff, N.P.: Gasification Technologies: A Primer for
Engineers and Scientists, 92-113, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2005.
102
APPENDIX
Gasification Island
W = (p) = v(dp)
Work done by the pump (Wideal) =
(A -1)
830.62 kJ/hr
= 0.000,8 MMBTU/hr
Wideal pump
(A-2)
103
Enthalpies of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process are shown in the Fig. A-1.
V dp = H - U = 0.000,9 MMBTU/hr
Work done above is same as the value obtained from calculation. Fig. A-2 shows the results of the unit operation with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
104
P2 /P1 = 41.44
Inlet Temperature of Oxygen Stream Tin = 298.15 K Outlet Temperature of Oxygen Stream coming out of compressor is calculated by: Tout = Tin (P2/P1) ( 1)/ Calculated value of Tout = 1081 F Simulated value of Tout from Aspen = 1066 F Molecular weight of the oxygen stream = 31.79 kg/kmol So R in terms of (kJ/kg K) is given as = R (in kJ/kmol K) / Molecular Weight (A-4)
869.36 kg/hr
So, Wcomp, in in kJ/hr = Mass of Oxygen Entered (in kg/hr) Work ( in kJ/kg)
= 515.27 869.36 = 447961.45 kJ/hr = 424585.52 BTU/hr
105
But the above calculated work done is for 100% efficient compressor. So Work input for a 92% efficient compressor is given by:
Work done at 100% efficiency Percentage Efficiency 424585.52 = 461506 BTU/hr So final work input for the compressor is = 0.92
= 0.4615 MMBTU/hr Overall Enthalpy balance around compressor is given as: Energy In = Energy Out which is given by the following equations:
& H2 + ( E out = Q out + m & H1 + ( E in = Win + m & v2 m & gz 2 )+m 2
(A-6)
(A-7)
Neglecting the potential and kinetic energy effects we can calculate the final heat out from the compressor (Qout)
(A-8)
Fig. A-3 shows the results of the unit operation with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
106
Energy Balance around Gasifier: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-4.
107
Overall Energy In into the gasifier is given by the following equation: E in, gasifier = H reactants Q decompos (A-9)
Q in + h reac h prod = 0
(A-10)
So heat duty of the gasifier (Qin,gasifier) = -2.72 + 1.79 = 0.93 MMBTU/hr (Calculated) Heat duty of Gasifier value from Aspen = 0.93 MMBTU/hr
So both the heat duties i.e., calculated and simulated values are equal and this verifies the energy balance around gasifier and gasification island. Fig. A-5 shows the results of the unit operation with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
108
Cooling
Cooling section has three coolers which bring down the temperature of hot syngas coming out of the gasifier. This is done mainly to reduce the temperature of the syngas before it enters the gas cleanup process.
Energy Balance around COOLER1: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-6.
109
Fig. A-6 Energy balance around cooler1 Overall Energy balance around the Cooler is given by the following equations: EnergyBalance = E in E out = 0 (A-11)
E in = Win + Q in + H in
E out = Wout + Q out + H out In a cooler Work is not done. So Win = Wout = Similarly no heat is supplied into the cooler. So Qin = So by the energy balance we have H 2,out + Q out = H in H 1,out So H2,out+Qout is calculated as = -3.92 MMBTU/hr 0 MMBTU/hr 0 MMBTU/hr
(A-12) (A-13)
(A-14)
Qout is the amount of heat rejected in this cooling process. By this way of cooling the temperature of the syngas is reduced from 2,550 F to 1,500 F. The steam generated by this cooling process is rerouted to HRSG, where all the steam streams are coupled to generate steam for steam turbine section
Fig. A-7 shows the results of the unit operation with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
110
Energy Balance around COOLER2: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-8.
111
Overall Energy balance around the Cooler is given by Eqs. A-11, A12, and A-13: In a cooler Work is not done. So Win = Wout = Similarly no heat is supplied into the cooler. So Qin = So by Eq. A-14, we have: So H2,out+Qout is calculated as = -4.60 MMBTU/hr Qout is the amount of heat rejected in this cooling process in the steam. By this way of cooling the temperature of the syngas is reduced from 1,500 F to 750 F. The steam generated by this cooling process is rerouted to HRSG, where all the steam streams are coupled to generate steam for steam turbine section Fig. A-9 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation. 0 MMBTU/hr 0 MMBTU/hr
112
Energy Balance around COOLER3: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-10.
Fig. A-10 Energy balance around cooler3 Overall Energy balance around the Cooler is given by Eqs. A-11, A12, and A-13: In a cooler Work is not done. So Win = Wout = Similarly no heat is supplied into the cooler. So Qin = So by Eq. A-14, we have: So H2,out+Qout is calculated as = -5.17 MMBTU/hr Qout is the amount of heat rejected in this cooling process in the steam. By this way of cooling the temperature of the syngas is reduced from 750 F to 500 F. The steam generated by this cooling process is rerouted to HRSG, where all the steam streams are coupled to generate steam for steam turbine section Fig. A-11 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation. 0 MMBTU/hr 0 MMBTU/hr
113
Gas Cleanup
114
Selexol process is a separator to remove the acid gas from the syngas. Total energy balance around the Selexol separator is given by the equation: Energy In Energy Out = 0 = -7.14 (-6.60E-02 7.07) = 0 MMBTU/hr Fig. A-13 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
115
Fig. A-13 Mass and energy balance results around Selexol reactor
Energy Balance around CFURNACE: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-14.
116
Fig. A-14 Energy balance around Claus furnace According to the energy Balance overall energy balance around the furnace is given by the following equation:
H in H out + Q in = 0
(A-15)
So overall energy Balance is computed as : - 0.066 - 2.19E - 10 + 0.075 + 0.0093 = 0 We also need to compute the heat of reaction of the furnace. The two main reactions which take place in the reactor are: H 2 S + 1.5 O 2 - - > SO 2 + H 2 O 2 H 2 S + SO 2 - - > 2 H 2 O + 3 S The heat of reaction is given by the following equation: h R = N P ( h f + h h o ) P N R ( h f + h h P ) R Where:
o o o
(A - 16) (A - 17)
(A-18)
h f is the heat of formation of the component h o is the sensible enthalpy of the component at 298 K and 1 atm
117
The extent of reaction 1 is assumed to be 40% conversion of the H2S entering the system So according to the stoichiometric reaction the heat of reaction for 1 kmol of H2S entering the system, it is computed as:
h R 1 = N SO 2 (h f + h h o ) SO 2 + N H 2 O (h f + h h o ) H 2 O N H 2S (h f + h h P ) H 2S N O 2 (h f + h h P ) O 2
o o o o
(A-19)
118
Above is the value of heat of reaction for 1 kmol of H2S. For 0.9375 kmol of H2S the heat of reaction is computed as:
= -514575.1635 0.9375 kJ/kmol = - 482447.08 kJ/kmol
Similarly we can compute heat of reaction for the reaction 2 using the following equation:
h R 2 = N S (h f + h h o ) S + N H 2 O (h f + h h o ) H 2 O N H 2S (h f + h h P ) H 2S N SO 2 (h f + h h P ) SO 2 So computing the value of hR 2 (1kmol ) = 685537.87 kJ/kmol
o o o o o o
(A-20)
Since we assume the full conversion of SO2 above is the final heat of reaction. So overall heat of reaction is given by the following equation:
h R = h R1 + h R2 = -482447.08 + 685537.87 = 170962.70 kJ/kmol
Above is the calculated heat of the reaction. Simulated heat of reaction is:
h R = h R1 + h R2 = -518023.99 + 685981.99 = 167958.00 kJ/kmol
We can observe that the observed and calculated heats of reactions are nearly equal. This verifies the energy balance of the Claus Furnace. Fig. A-15 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
119
Fig. A-15 Mass and energy balance results around Claus furnace
Energy Balance around COOLER5: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the table A-16
120
Similarly since no work is done in a cooler Win = Wout = 0 MMBTU/hr Overall Energy balance around the Cooler is given by Eqs. A-11, A12, A-13, and A-14: So H2,out+Qout = -0.0093 1.02 + 7.74E-01 + 2.39E-01 = 5.0741E-05 MMBTU/hr So above is the heat duty of the cooler. The heat rejected is accompanied with steam. Fig. A-17 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
Energy Balance around CLAUSSEP: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-18.
121
Fig. A-18 Energy balance around Claus separator From the energy balance equation we can determine the work done by the separator: Wout = H in H out + Q in Q out Since there is no heat transfer in the separator Q in = Q out = 0 (A-21)
So the work done by the separator is given as Wout = 2.39E 01 + 5.39E 01 3.00E 01
= 9.00E 06MMBTU/hr
Above work done is the heat duty of the separator. Simulated heat duty from Aspen is found to be -8.98E-06 MMBTU/hr
Separation Efficiency:
Amount of sulfur entering the Separator = Amount of sulfur removed Calculated % Recovery 94.45 lb/hr
Fig. A-19 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
122
Fig. A-19 Mass and energy balance results around Claus separator
Energy Balance around CLAUSHR2: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the table A-20.
In the cooler no heat is supplied in, so Qin = 0 MMBTU/hr Similarly since no work is done in a cooler Win = Wout = 0 MMBTU/hr Overall Energy balance around the Cooler is given by Eqs. A-11, A12, and A-13:
& = 375.29 lb/hr = 170.23 kg/hr Mass of Stream entering and leaving = m
So Qout = mass of stream (H in H out ) = -0.024 MMBTU/hr So above is the heat duty of the cooler. The heat rejected is accompanied with steam.
123
Fig. A-21 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
Fig. A-21 Mass and energy balance results around Claus heat exchanger
Energy Balance around Claus Furnace (CFURNACE2): Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the table A-22.
124
So the overall heat duty of the furnace is given by Q in = H out H in So Heat duty of the furnace is Qin = -2.56E-01 + 5.15E-01 + 3.56E-11 = 0.26 MMBTU/hr (Calculated) Simulated heat duty of the furnace = 0.2584 MMBTU/hr Fig. A-23 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation. (A-22)
Fig. A-23 Mass and energy balance results around Claus furnace
Energy balance around CLAUSSP2: Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-24.
125
From the energy balance equation we can determine the work done by the separator:
Wout = H in H out + Q in Q out Since there is no heat transfer in the separator Q in = Q out = 0 So the work done by the separator is given as Wout = 2.56E 01 + 5.49E 01 1.690E 01 = 1.25E 01MMBTU/hr
(A-23)
Above work done is the heat duty of the separator. Simulated heat duty from Aspen is found to be 1.2457E-01 MMBTU/hr
Separation Efficiency:
Amount of sulfur entering the Separator = Amount of sulfur removed Calculated % Recovery 1.704 lb/hr
Fig. A-25 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
126
Fig. A-25 Mass and energy balance results around Claus separator
Gas Turbine
Inlet Temperature of Oxygen Stream = 428.58 K Molecular weight of the syngas stream from Aspen= 28.65 kg/kmol So R in terms of (kJ/kg K) is given as = R (in kJ/kmol K) Molecular Weight
127
15489.74 kg/hr
So amount of Wcomp, in in kJ/hr = Mass of syngas Entered Work ( in kJ/kg) = 160.15 15489.74 = 2480697.46 kJ/hr = 2351247.47 BTU/hr But the above calculated work done is for 100% efficient compressor. So Work input for a 92% isentropic efficient compressor is given by: Work done at 100% efficiency Isentropic Efficiency
(A-25)
2351247.47 So final work input for the compressor is = = 2555703.77 BTU/hr = 2.55570.92 MMBTU/hr
The mechanical efficiency of the compressor was assumed to be 98%. So final work done with 98% mechanical efficiency is given as:
2.5557 = 2.61 MMBTU/hr 0.98 Overall Enthalpy balance around compressor is given as: =
Energy In = Energy Out which is given by the following equations:
& H1 + ( E in = Win + m & v2 m & gz 1 )+m 2
(A-26)
& v2 m (A-27) & gz 2 )+m 2 Neglecting the potential and kinetic energy effects we can calculate the final heat out from the compressor (Qout) & H2 + ( E out = Q out + m
128
Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-26.
Fig. A-26 Energy balance of the first gas turbine compressor So from the Balance Qout = Wcomp,in + Hin Hout So Qout = 2.6078 +1.96E-00 4.43E-00 = 1.36E-01 MMBTU/hr
Cross Check:
Enthalpy of Inlet stream (COMPGA1) Hin = 1.96E+00 MMBTU/hr Enthalpy of outlet stream (COMPGA2) Hout = 4.43E+00 MMBTU/hr By energy balance Hin Hout = Qout - Wcomp,in = 1.96E+00 4.43E+00 = -2.47E+00 MMBTU/hr From Calculated values of Qout - Wcomp,in = 1.36E-01 2.6078 = -2.47E+00 MMBTU/hr Fig. A-27 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
129
Fig. A-27 Mass and energy balance results of the first gas turbine compressor
130
= 1.3771
So R in terms of (kJ/kg K) is given as = R (in kJ/kmol K) / Molecular Weight = 8.314 / 28.65 = 0.29 kJ/kg K Work done by the compressor (Win) is given by Eq. A-24. Using the above equation calculating the value of Wcomp,in = 93.86 kJ/kg
15489.74 kg/hr
So amount of Wcomp, in in kJ/hr = Mass of syngas Entered Work ( in kJ/kg) = 93.86 15489.74 = 1453931.70 kJ/hr
= 1378061.33 BTU/hr But the above calculated work done is for 100% efficient compressor. So Work input for a 92% isentropic efficient compressor is given by: Work done at 100% efficiency Isentropic Efficiency So final work input for the compressor is = 1378061.33 = 1497892.75 BTU/hr 0.92 = 1.49 MMBTU/hr
The mechanical efficiency of the compressor was assumed to be 100%. So final work done with 100% mechanical efficiency is given as: 1.4978 = 1.49 MMBTU/hr 1.00 Overall Enthalpy balance around compressor is given as:
Energy In = Energy Out which is given by the following Eqs. A-26 and A-27: Neglecting the potential and kinetic energy effects we can calculate the final heat out from the compressor (Qout) So from the Balance Qout = Wcomp,in + Hin Hout So Qout = 1.49 +4.43E-00 5.92E-00 = 6.03E-04 MMBTU/hr
131
Cross Check:
Enthalpy of Inlet stream (COMPGA2) Hin from Aspen = 4.4299E+00 MMBTU/hr
Enthalpy of outlet stream (COMPGA3) Hout from Aspen = 5.9272E+00 MMBTU/hr By energy balance Hin Hout = Qout - Wcomp,in = 4.4299E+00 5.9272E+00 = -1.497E+00 MMBTU/hr From Calculated values of Qout - Wcomp,in = 6.03E-04 1.4978 = -1.497E+00 MMBTU/hr Fig. A-29 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
Fig. A-29 Mass and energy balance results of the second gas turbine compressor
Energy Balance around Gas Turbine 1: (GTTURB1) Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-30.
132
Fig. A-30 Energy balance around first gas turbine Compression Ratio value from Aspen = 1.277 So we know that
cP = cV
(A-28) (A-29)
R = 30.0065 kJ/kmol K 1
(A-30)
(A-31)
Where: Isentropic Efficiency I t of the turbine is assumed to be 95% Now calculating the work done by the turbine:
133
= 4.3918 MMBTU/hr So work done by the turbine = 7796.64 594.315 = 4633666.346 kJ/hr Now with mechanical efficiency of 95% for the turbine we have: Net work available to the shaft from the turbine is : 4.3918 0.95 = 4.17 MMBTU/hr Simulated value of available shaft work from Aspen = 4.17 MMBTU/hr So from the energy balance heat released during the expansion process (Qout) is given as Q out = H in H out Wout So Calculating the value of Qout = -1.06+E01 + 1.50E+01 + 4.17 = 0.217 MMBTU/hr Fig. A-31 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation. (A-32)
Fig. A-31 Mass and energy balance results around the first gas turbine
134
Energy Balance around Gas Turbine 2: (GTTURB2) Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-32.
Fig. A-32 Energy balance around second gas turbine Compression Ratio value from Aspen So we know that
= 1.2856
cP = cV
R = 29.1080 kJ/kmol K 1
Hence cP = 37.4220 kJ/kmol K Turbine Pressure Ratio (TPR) is given by Eq. A-30 Pressure of inlet stream (pin) = Pressure of outlet stream coming out of turbine (pout) = Turbine pressure ratio is then calculated as = 50/100 = 0.5 Now we can calculate the turbine work. Turbine work is computed using A-31: Where: Isentropic Efficiency I t of the turbine is assumed to be 95% 100 psia 50 psia
135
Net work available to the shaft from the turbine is : 3.6354 0.95 = 3.4537 MMBTU/hr Simulated value of available shaft work from Aspen = 3.4515 MMBTU/hr So from the energy balance heat released during the expansion process (Qout) is given by Eq. A-32
So Calculating the value of Qout = -1.50+E01 + 1.86E+01 + 3.4537 = 0.179 MMBTU/hr Fig. A-33 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
Fig. A-33 Mass and energy balance results around the second gas turbine
136
Energy Balance around Gas Turbine 3: (GTTURB3) Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-34.
= 1.2955
cP = cV
R = 28.1339 kJ/kmol K 1
Hence cP = 36.4479 kJ/kmol Ks Turbine Pressure Ratio (TPR) is given by Eq. A-30 Turbine pressure ratio is then calculated as = 14.7/50 = 0.294 Now we can calculate the turbine work. Turbine work is computed using Eq. A-31 Where: Isentropic Efficiency I t of the turbine is assumed to be 95% Temperature of the inlet stream = 1097.42 K
137
Fig. A-35 Mass and energy balance results around the third gas turbine
138
(A-33) (A-34)
(A-35)
HRSG1 is used to generate steam from high temperature gas which comes out of the gas turbine section. Energy temperature from hot gas to the cooling water is found using the above equations. Enthalpy of the Water in (HRSGWTR1) @ 77 F = -6817.64 BTU/lb = -15857.84 BTU/kg Enthalpy of the Water Out (H2OST5) @ 1056.77 F = -5431.99 BTU/lb = -12634.80 BTU/kg
(A-36)
139
= 3.51 MMBTU/hr
Fig. A-36 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
Fig. A-36 Mass and energy balance results around the first HRSG
Energy Balance around HRSG2: Heat Recover Steam Generator (HRSG) acts as a coupling point to collect different steam streams. The steams generated in various sections are routed to this coupling point where its reheated and pressurized and sent into the steam turbine.
140
The energy balance equations used in the HRSG section are given by Eqs. A-33, A-34, and A-35.
HRSG2 is the second stage used to generate steam from high temperature gas which comes out of the gas turbine section. Energy temperature from hot gas to the cooling water is found using the above equations. Enthalpy of the Water in (HRSGWTR2) @ 77 F = -6.82E+03 BTU/lb = -15857.84 BTU/kg Enthalpy of the Water Out (H2OST6) @ 1056.77 F = -5.47E+03 BTU/lb = -12715.55 BTU/kg Mass of water entering the heat exchanger (m) = 687.19 kg/hr Now calculating Qwin using Eq. A-36:
141
Fig. A-37 Mass and energy balance results around the second HRSG
(A-37)
Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the table A-38.
Fig. A-38 Energy balance around re-boiler Heat duty of the reboiler = 3045.87 (-12264.38 + 12583.83) = 973005.7561 BTU/hr = 0.9730 MMBTU/hr
142
Aspen simulated value of the heat duty of the reboiler = 0.9522 MMBTU/hr Fig. A-39 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
(A-38) (A-39)
In a heat in and heat out are assumed to be zero. Even though there is slight heat dissipation due to the shaft work it can be considered as negligible. Hence Qin = Qout = 0 MMBTU/hr
143
(A-40)
Neglecting the kinetic and potential energy changes as they are infinitesimal, we have:
Wout = dH So enthalpy of the inlet and outlet streams from aspen in the Fig. A-40:
(A-41)
So shaft work available due to expansion = Wout = -3.54E+07 + 3.75E+07 = 2.077 MMBTU/hr With 95% efficiency of the turbine the ultimate shaft power available =
144
Fig. A-41 Mass and energy balance results around high pressure steam turbine
Energy balance around LP turbine: Low-pressure turbine forms the second stage of the two stage turbine in the steam cycle process. Rankine cycle was used to model the steam cycle process. The shaft work available in the turbine can be estimated using Eqs. A-38 and A-39:
In a heat in and heat out are assumed to be zero. Even though there is slight heat dissipation due to the shaft work it can be considered as negligible. Hence Qin = Qout = 0 MMBTU/hr
Similarly work in is also considered to be zero = Win = 0 MMBTU/hr So Work available for the shaft work is given by Eq. A-40 Neglecting the kinetic and potential energy changes as they are infinitesimal, we have Eq. A-41. So enthalpy of the inlet and outlet streams from aspen is given as:
145
So shaft work available due to expansion = Wout = -2.86E+07 + 3.02E+07 = 1.617 MMBTU/hr With 95% efficiency of the turbine the ultimate shaft power available =
Fig. A-43 Mass and energy balance results around low pressure steam turbine
146
(A-42)
Main parameters of inlet and outlet stream associated with the unit operation process which is used in the calculation are shown in the Fig. A-44.
Heat duty of the reboiler = 2324.610 (-15776.12 6+ 13717.649) = -4785158.094 BTU/hr = -4.7851 MMBTU/hr Aspen simulated value of the heat duty of the reboiler = -4.6354569 MMBTU/hr Table A-4 shows a comparison between the computed energy balance values with that of simulated ones for various unit operations in gasification island, cooling section and claus process. Fig. A-45 shows the results of the unit operation pump with Mass and energy balance around the unit operation.
147
148
Table A-4 Energy balance comparison in gas cooling and Claus process
Unit Operation Property (units) This Work Gasification Section Aspen Difference
Claus Furnace Claus Cooler Claus Separator Claus Heat Exchanger Claus Furnace 2 Claus Separator
Heat of reaction (kJ/kmol) Heat Out (MMBTU/hr) Work Out (MMBTU/hr) Heat Duty (MMBTU/hr) Heat Duty (MMBTU/hr) Heat Duty (MMBTU/hr)
1.679 x 10 5.04 x 10 9 x 10
-6
-0.03 x 10 -5.04 x 10 -9 x 10
-6
-5
-5
Table A-5 shows the a comparison between the computed energy balance values with that of simulated ones for various unit operations in gas turbine section and steam turbine section.
149
Table A-5 Energy balance comparison in gas and steam turbine section
Unit Operation Property (units) This Work Gas Turbine Section Aspen Difference
WorkIn + Qout (MMBTU/hr) WorkIn + Qout (MMBTU/hr) Shaft Work (MMBTU/hr) Shaft Work (MMBTU/hr) Shaft Work (MMBTU/hr)
HRSG Heat Exchanger 1 HRSG Heat Exchanger 2 Reboiler High-pressure Steam Turbine Low-pressure Steam Turbine Condenser
Heat Duty (MMBTU/hr) Heat Duty (MMBTU/hr) Heat Duty (MMBTU/hr) Shaft Work (MMBTU/hr) Shaft Work (MMBTU/hr) Heat Duty (MMBTU/hr)
150
VITA
NAME: ADDRESS:
Ramkumar Jayakumar 3116 Deperatment of Petroleum Engineering c/o Dr. Maria Barrufet Spence St, College Station, TX - 77843 ram.anirudh@gmail.com B. Tech Chemical Engineering Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Anna University, India May 2005 M.S. Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University, College Station, TX May 2008
EMAIL: EDUCATION: